weak versus dynamic, definitional origins

[Erik Max Francis]

Courageous wrote:

> A very clear way of putting it. Now on to the question. Anyone know
> about the schism in nomenclature that appears to be going on here?
> I can find definitions of strong typing that make python weakly
> typed. Clearly we know what we mean when we say it, I just have a
> passing curiousity regarding when the community started attempting
> to redefine the terms so that python could be said to have "strong"
> typing. Not long ago, wasn't so.

I don't think there's a schism per se, I think you're just finding
people who refer to Python as weakly typed not making a distinction
between the strong-weak and static-dynamic axes.  To them, they use
"strong" to mean a statically typed language -- usually their language
of preference -- and everything else gets lumped in as "weak."

I've always been of the opinion that the two-axis type classification
system is far more useful, since it's important to make a distinction
between what kind of type system enforcement takes place, and when it
takes place.

Also, Python's strong/dynamic type system, where "variables" are really
typeless entities that can be bound and rebound to utterly different
types at a whim is usually called "manifest typing"; Lisp also features
this typing system.

-- 
   Erik Max Francis && max at alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/  \ It comes from inside, and that's what I consider to be soul music.
\__/  Sade Adu